Explore the vast range of titles available.

These consensus guidelines were jointly commissioned by the British Society of Gastroenterology (BSG), the Association of Coloproctology of Great Britain and Ireland (ACPGBI) and Public Health England (PHE). They provide an evidence-based framework for the use of surveillance colonoscopy and non-colonoscopic colorectal imaging in people aged 18 years and over. They are the first guidelines that take into account the introduction of national bowel cancer screening. For the first time, they also incorporate surveillance of patients following resection of either adenomatous or serrated polyps and also post-colorectal cancer resection. They are primarily aimed at healthcare professionals, and aim to address:Which patients should commence surveillance post-polypectomy and post-cancer resection?What is the appropriate surveillance interval?When can surveillance be stopped? two or more premalignant polyps including at least one advanced colorectal polyp (defined as a serrated polyp of at least 10 mm in size or containing any grade of dysplasia, or an adenoma of at least 10 mm in size or containing high-grade dysplasia); or five or more premalignant polyps The Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation (AGREE II) instrument provided a methodological framework for the guidelines. The BSG’s guideline development process was used, which is National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) compliant.two or more premalignant polyps including at least one advanced colorectal polyp (defined as a serrated polyp of at least 10 mm in size or containing any grade of dysplasia, or an adenoma of at least 10 mm in size or containing high-grade dysplasia); or five or more premalignant polyps The key recommendations are that the high-risk criteria for future colorectal cancer (CRC) following polypectomy comprise either:two or more premalignant polyps including at least one advanced colorectal polyp (defined as a serrated polyp of at least 10 mm in size or containing any grade of dysplasia, or an adenoma of at least 10 mm in size or containing high-grade dysplasia); or five or more premalignant polyps This cohort should undergo a one-off surveillance colonoscopy at 3 years. Post-CRC resection patients should undergo a 1 year clearance colonoscopy, then a surveillance colonoscopy after 3 more years.

This study provides an overview of the largest and longest-running colonoscopic surveillance program for colorectal cancer (CRC) in patients with long-standing ulcerative colitis (UC). Data were obtained from medical records, endoscopy, and histology reports. Primary end points were defined as death, colectomy, withdrawal from surveillance, or censor date (1 January 2013). A total of 1,375 UC patients were followed up for 15,234 patient-years (median, 11 years per patient). CRC was detected in 72 patients (incidence rate (IR), 4.7 per 1,000 patient-years). Time-trend analysis revealed that although there was significant decrease in incidence of colectomy performed for dysplasia (linear regression, R=-0.43; P=0.007), IR of advanced CRC and interval CRC have steadily decreased over past four decades (Pearson's correlation, -0.99; P=0.01 for both trends). The IR of early CRC has increased 2.5-fold in the current decade compared with past decade (χ(2), P=0.045); however, its 10-year survival rate was high (79.6%). The IR of dysplasia has similarly increased (χ(2), P=0.01), potentially attributable to the recent use of chromoendoscopy that was twice more effective at detecting dysplasia compared with white-light endoscopy (χ(2), P<0.001). CRCs were frequently accompanied by synchronous CRC or spatially distinct dysplasia (37.5%). Finally, the risk of CRC was not significantly different between \"indefinite\" or low-grade dysplasia (log-rank, P=0.78). Colonoscopic surveillance may have a significant role in reducing the risk of advanced and interval CRC while allowing more patients to retain their colon for longer. Given the ongoing risk of early CRC, patients with any grade of dysplasia who are managed endoscopically should be monitored closely with advanced techniques.

Accurate optical diagnosis of small (<10 mm) colorectal polyps in vivo, without formal histopathology, could make colonoscopy more efficient and cost effective. The aim of this study was to assess whether optical diagnosis of small polyps is feasible and safe in routine clinical practice. Consecutive patients with a positive faecal occult blood test or previous adenomas undergoing surveillance at St Mark's Hospital (London, UK), from June 19, 2008, to June 16, 2009, were included in this prospective study. Four colonoscopists with different levels of experience predicted polyp histology using optical diagnosis with high-definition white light, followed by narrow-band imaging without magnification and chromoendoscopy, as required. The primary outcome was accuracy of polyp characterisation using optical diagnosis compared with histopathology, the current gold standard. Accuracy of optical diagnosis to predict the next surveillance interval was also assessed and compared with surveillance intervals predicted by current guidelines using histopathology. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT00888771. 363 polyps smaller than 10 mm were detected in 130 patients, of which 278 polyps had both optical and histopathological diagnosis. By histology, 198 of these polyps were adenomas and 80 were non-neoplastic lesions (of which 62 were hyperplastic). Optical diagnosis accurately diagnosed 186 of 198 adenomas (sensitivity 0·94; 95% CI 0·90–0·97) and 55 of 62 hyperplastic polyps (specificity 0·89; 0·78–0·95), with an overall accuracy of 241 of 260 (0·93, 0·89–0·96) for polyp characterisation. Using optical diagnosis alone, 82 of 130 patients could be given a surveillance interval immediately after colonoscopy, and the same interval was found after formal histopathology in 80 patients (98%) using British guidelines and in 78 patients (95%) using US multisociety guidelines. For polyps less than 10 mm in size, in-vivo optical diagnosis seems to be an acceptable strategy to assess polyp histopathology and future surveillance intervals. Dispensing with formal histopathology for most small polyps found at colonoscopy could improve the efficiency of the procedure and lead to substantial savings in time and cost. Leigh Family Trust, London, UK.

ObjectivePostpolypectomy colonoscopy surveillance aims to prevent colorectal cancer (CRC). The 2002 UK surveillance guidelines define low-risk, intermediate-risk and high-risk groups, recommending different strategies for each. Evidence supporting the guidelines is limited. We examined CRC incidence and effects of surveillance on incidence among each risk group.DesignRetrospective study of 33 011 patients who underwent colonoscopy with adenoma removal at 17 UK hospitals, mostly (87%) from 2000 to 2010. Patients were followed up through 2016. Cox regression with time-varying covariates was used to estimate effects of surveillance on CRC incidence adjusted for patient, procedural and polyp characteristics. Standardised incidence ratios (SIRs) compared incidence with that in the general population.ResultsAfter exclusions, 28 972 patients were available for analysis; 14 401 (50%) were classed as low-risk, 11 852 (41%) as intermediate-risk and 2719 (9%) as high-risk. Median follow-up was 9.3 years. In the low-risk, intermediate-risk and high-risk groups, CRC incidence per 100 000 person-years was 140 (95% CI 122 to 162), 221 (195 to 251) and 366 (295 to 453), respectively. CRC incidence was 40%–50% lower with a single surveillance visit than with none: hazard ratios (HRs) were 0.56 (95% CI 0.39 to 0.80), 0.59 (0.43 to 0.81) and 0.49 (0.29 to 0.82) in the low-risk, intermediate-risk and high-risk groups, respectively. Compared with the general population, CRC incidence without surveillance was similar among low-risk (SIR 0.86, 95% CI 0.73 to 1.02) and intermediate-risk (1.16, 0.97 to 1.37) patients, but higher among high-risk patients (1.91, 1.39 to 2.56).ConclusionPostpolypectomy surveillance reduces CRC risk. However, even without surveillance, CRC risk in some low-risk and intermediate-risk patients is no higher than in the general population. These patients could be managed by screening rather than surveillance.

The aim of this study was to identify risk factors associated with development of high-grade dysplasia (HGD) or colorectal cancer (CRC) in ulcerative colitis (UC) patients diagnosed with low-grade dysplasia (LGD). Patients with histologically confirmed extensive UC, who were diagnosed with LGD between 1993 and 2012 at St Mark's Hospital, were identified and followed up to 1 July 2013. Demographic, endoscopic, and histological data were collected and correlated with the development of HGD or CRC. A total of 172 patients were followed for a median of 48 months from the date of initial LGD diagnosis (interquartile range (IQR), 15-87 months). Overall, 33 patients developed HGD or CRC (19.1% of study population; 20 CRCs) during study period. Multivariate Cox proportional hazard analysis revealed that macroscopically non-polypoid (hazard ratio (HR), 8.6; 95% confidence interval (CI), 3.0-24.8; P<0.001) or invisible (HR, 4.1; 95% CI, 1.3-13.4; P=0.02) dysplasia, dysplastic lesions ≥1 cm in size (HR, 3.8; 95% CI, 1.5-13.4; P=0.01), and a previous history of \"indefinite for dysplasia\" (HR, 2.8; 95% CI, 1.2-6.5; P=0.01) were significant contributory factors for HGD or CRC development. Multifocal dysplasia (HR, 3.9; 95% CI, 1.9-7.8; P<0.001), metachronous dysplasia (HR, 3.5; 95% CI, 1.6-7.5; P=0.001), or a colonic stricture (HR, 7.4; 95% CI, 2.5-22.1; P<0.001) showed only univariate correlation to development of HGD or CRC. Lesions that are non-polypoid or endoscopically invisible, large (≥1 cm), or preceded by indefinite dysplasia are independent risk factors for developing HGD or CRC in UC patients diagnosed with LGD.

These guidelines provide an evidence-based framework for the management of patients with large non-pedunculated colorectal polyps (LNPCPs), in addition to identifying key performance indicators (KPIs) that permit the audit of quality outcomes. These are areas not previously covered by British Society of Gastroenterology (BSG) Guidelines.A National Institute of Health and Care Excellence (NICE) compliant BSG guideline development process was used throughout and the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation (AGREE II) tool was used to structure the guideline development process. A systematic review of literature was conducted for English language articles up to May 2014 concerning the assessment and management of LNPCPs. Quality of evaluated studies was assessed using the Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network (SIGN) Methodology Checklist System. Proposed recommendation statements were evaluated by each member of the Guideline Development Group (GDG) on a scale from 1 (strongly agree) to 5 (strongly disagree) with >80% agreement required for consensus to be reached. Where consensus was not reached a modified Delphi process was used to re-evaluate and modify proposed statements until consensus was reached or the statement discarded. A round table meeting was subsequently held to finalise recommendations and to evaluate the strength of evidence discussed. The GRADE tool was used to assess the strength of evidence and strength of recommendation for finalised statements.KPIs, a training framework and potential research questions for the management of LNPCPs were also developed. It is hoped that these guidelines will improve the assessment and management of LNPCPs.

ObjectiveColonoscopy surveillance aims to reduce colorectal cancer (CRC) incidence after polypectomy. The 2020 UK guidelines recommend surveillance at 3 years for ‘high-risk’ patients with ≥2 premalignant polyps (PMPs), of which ≥1 is ‘advanced’ (serrated polyp (or adenoma) ≥10 mm or with (high-grade) dysplasia); ≥5 PMPs; or ≥1 non-pedunculated polyp ≥20 mm; ‘low-risk’ patients without these findings are instead encouraged to participate in population-based CRC screening. We examined the appropriateness of these risk classification criteria and recommendations.DesignRetrospective analysis of patients who underwent colonoscopy and polypectomy mostly between 2000 and 2010 at 17 UK hospitals, followed-up through 2017. We examined CRC incidence by baseline characteristics, risk group and number of surveillance visits using Cox regression, and compared incidence with that in the general population using standardised incidence ratios (SIRs).ResultsAmong 21 318 patients, 368 CRCs occurred during follow-up (median: 10.1 years). Baseline CRC risk factors included age ≥55 years, ≥2 PMPs, adenomas with tubulovillous/villous/unknown histology or high-grade dysplasia, proximal polyps and a baseline visit spanning 2–90 days. Compared with the general population, CRC incidence without surveillance was higher among those with adenomas with high-grade dysplasia (SIR 1.74, 95% CI 1.21 to 2.42) or ≥2 PMPs, of which ≥1 was advanced (1.39, 1.09 to 1.75). For low-risk (71%) and high-risk (29%) patients, SIRs without surveillance were 0.75 (95% CI 0.63 to 0.88) and 1.30 (1.03 to 1.62), respectively; for high-risk patients after first surveillance, the SIR was 1.22 (0.91 to 1.60).ConclusionThese guidelines accurately classify post-polypectomy patients into those at high risk, for whom one surveillance colonoscopy appears appropriate, and those at low risk who can be managed by non-invasive screening.

Background High quality endoscopy is key for detecting and removing precursor lesions to colorectal cancer (CRC). Adenoma detection rates (ADRs) measure endoscopist performance. Improving other components of examinations could increase adenoma detection. Aims To investigate how endoscopist performance at flexible sigmoidoscopy (FS) affects adenoma detection and CRC incidence. Methods Among 34,139 participants receiving FS screening by the main endoscopist at one of 13 centres in the UK FS Screening Trial, median follow-up was 17 years. Factors examined included family history of CRC, bowel preparation quality, insertion and withdrawal time, bowel segment reached, patient pain and ADR. Odds ratios (OR) for distal adenoma detection were estimated by logistic regression. Hazard ratios (HR) for distal CRC incidence were estimated by Cox regression. Results At screening, 4,104 participants had distal adenomas detected and 168 participants developed distal CRC during follow-up. In multivariable models, a family history of CRC (yes vs. no: OR 1.40, 95%CI 1.21–1.62), good or adequate bowel preparation quality (vs. excellent: OR 0.84, 95%CI 0.74–0.95; OR 0.56, 95%CI 0.49–0.65, respectively) and longer insertion and withdrawal times (≥ 4.00 vs. < 2.00 min: OR 1.96, 95%CI 1.68–2.29; OR 32.79, 95%CI 28.22–38.11, respectively) were associated with adenoma detection. Being screened by endoscopists with low or intermediate ADRs, compared to high ADRs, was positively associated with CRC incidence (multivariable: HR 4.71, 95%CI 2.65–8.38; HR 2.16, 95%CI 1.22–3.81, respectively). Conclusions Bowel preparation quality and longer insertion and withdrawal time are key for improving distal adenoma detection. Higher ADRs were associated with a lower risk of distal CRC.

In ulcerative colitis surveillance, chromoendoscopy improves dysplasia detection 3 – 5-fold compared with white light endoscopy (WLE). The aim of this study was to investigate whether narrow band imaging (NBI) can improve dysplasia detection compared with WLE. This was a randomized, parallel-group trial. A total of 220 patients were needed to be recruited to detect a threefold increase in dysplasia detection. In all, 112 patients with long-standing ulcerative colitis were randomized to colonoscopic extubation with NBI (56) or WLE (56) (1:1 ratio) at two tertiary endoscopy units in the United Kingdom. Targeted biopsies of suspicious areas and quadrantic random biopsies every 10 cm were taken in both groups. The primary outcome measure was the proportion of patients with at least one area of dysplasia detected. In a prespecified mid-point analysis, the criteria for trial discontinuation were met and the trial was stopped and analyzed at this point. There was no difference in the primary outcome between the two groups, with 5 patients having at least one dysplastic lesion in each group (odds ratio (OR) 1.00, 95 % confidence interval (95 % CI) 0.27 – 3.67, P = 1.00). This remained unchanged when adjusted for other variables (OR 0.69, 95 % CI 0.16 – 2.96, P = 0.62). Overall, dysplasia detection was 9 % in each arm. Yield of dysplasia from random nontargeted biopsies was 1 / 2,707 (0.04 % ). Overall, in this multicenter parallel-group trial, there was no difference in dysplasia detection when using NBI compared with high-definition WLE colonoscopy. Random background biopsies were ineffective in detecting dysplasia.

BackgroundPoor bowel preparation is the leading cause of failed colonoscopies and increases costs significantly. Several, split preparation, 2 day regimens are available and recently, Plenvu, a low-volume preparation which can be given on 1 day has been introduced.AimsAssess efficacy and tolerability of commonly used purgative regimens including Plenvu.MethodIn this service evaluation, patients undergoing screening colonoscopy at St Mark’s Hospital, London (February 2020–December 2021) were provided Plenvu (1 or 2 days), Moviprep (2 days) or Senna & Citramag (2 days).Boston Bowel Preparation Scale (BBPS) score, fluid volumes and procedure times were recorded. A patient experience questionnaire evaluated taste, volume acceptability, completion and side effects.Results563 patients were invited to participate and 553 included: 218 Moviprep 2 days, 108 Senna & Citramag 2 days, 152 Plenvu 2 days and 75 Plenvu 1 day.BBPS scores were higher with Plenvu 1 and 2 days vs Senna & Citramag (p=0.003 and 0.002, respectively) and vs Moviprep (p=0.003 and 0.001, respectively). No other significant pairwise BBPS differences and no difference in preparation adequacy was seen between the groups.Patients rated taste as most pleasant with Senna & Citramag and this achieved significance versus Plenvu 1 day and 2 days (p=0.002 and p<0.001, respectively) and versus Moviprep (p=0.04).ConclusionBBPS score was higher for 1 day and 2 days Plenvu versus both Senna & Citramag and Moviprep. Taste was not highly rated for Plenvu but it appears to offer effective cleansing even when given as a same day preparation.